Response to interpellation 2024/25:355 on the country's welfare
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
KD argues that the government has prioritized the municipal sector by allocating large parts of the reform space to it and through permanent reinforcements of general government grants 1 2 3 4. KD believes that they have increased the general government grants by 16 billion and the targeted government grants to welfare 4. KD claims that the inflation fight has reduced the municipalities' costs by 50 billion 2 3 4 and that the reduction in fuel prices is an important reform for the heartland 4. S argues that the government does not prioritize welfare as they do not provide sufficient resources and withdraw support for rural areas 5 6. S claims that their own budget would have provided significantly more money to school and healthcare 6. S believes that resources that could have gone to welfare were instead directed to those who earn the most 7. S argues that KD does not protect the heartland but instead cuts resources and services in smaller municipalities 7.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Statsrådet Erik Slottner (KD)
Madam Speaker! Eva Lindh has asked me how I explain that special economic resources to demographically smaller municipalities are being removed and that service and presence are decreasing, and how I intend to act to ensure good welfare and service throughout the country.
In the budget bill for 2022, a special grant to demographically small municipalities was presented. The recipients of the grant were the smallest municipalities in terms of population as well as those municipalities that received the largest grant per inhabitant from the municipal equalization system during the years 2022-2024. The grant ceased, as planned, in 2024.
Differences in conditions between municipalities and regions are primarily handled through the municipal economic equalization system, which aims to create equal economic conditions despite differences in, for example, tax capacity, population, and age structure. The Parliamentary Equalization Committee submitted a unanimous proposal in its final report aimed at improving the equalization system. The committee's proposal has been referred and is now being prepared within the Government Offices.
Despite the fact that the state budgets for 2023 and 2024 needed to be restrained in order to combat inflation, the government during these years made reinforcements of the general state grants to the municipal sector totaling 16 billion kronor. The reinforcements have been permanent and thus continue to strengthen the entire municipal sector's economy from 2025 onwards.
The government also made a number of targeted investments in the municipal sector during 2023 and 2024. This amounts to a total of 14 billion kronor, of which 9 billion kronor is for health and medical care in the form of sector grants. For 2025, the government's investments have continued, so far including among other things 2 billion to health and medical care and a reinforcement of 700 million kronor of the so-called knowledge grant to schools.
State presence and service throughout the country is important to simplify for individuals and increase public benefit. At the same time, it is important that every tax krona is used wisely, and state-funded activities must constantly be subject to review and prioritization.
Eva Lindh (S)
Madam Speaker! Our Swedish welfare model has been unique. It has given us a more equal society with high employment and security for all. It has not only strengthened our society but also contributed to a strong and stable economic development.
Welfare shall be for all of us, regardless of background, regardless of income, and regardless of where one lives. All children shall have the right to a good school regardless of the parents' income, and we shall give our elderly a secure and dignified care, regardless of where one lives. But it turns out that welfare is not a given. Welfare is nothing to take for granted, and we must constantly fight for it to function for all of us.
Now we stand in Sweden facing a serious challenge. Here and now, the cost crisis in many places is leading to major cuts, fewer healthcare assistants and nursing assistants, and fewer opportunities for students who need help to receive it in school. We see that socially important activities risk deteriorating when there are not enough resources.
The SD-led government has responded by providing zero kronor in general state grants. The SD-led government has therefore not prioritized welfare. Despite tough times, the government chooses not to provide sufficient resources.
All municipalities and regions are now finding it tough to manage healthcare but also elderly care and the school system. Small municipalities in the countryside and those that have already had the toughest challenges are finding it particularly difficult, and now they are hit especially hard because the SD-led government is specifically withdrawing resources to rural and sparsely populated areas.
In 2022, the Social Democratic-led government introduced a special state grant to municipalities with structural challenges. The support was distributed to 70 municipalities that had the toughest challenges and to the smallest municipalities.
Now that support is being removed. It is crazy. It is bad for those who live and work in these municipalities, especially when we might - not so likely right now, but still - have received a compensation system that could level things out more. This will naturally affect people who live and work in the countryside.
My question to the responsible minister has been why sufficient resources are not given to municipalities and regions as a whole because it affects operations and especially why one removes just those targeted resources to the municipalities that have it toughest and to the smallest municipalities, especially in sparsely populated areas and in rural areas. I have not received an answer from the responsible minister, but I hope that I can get it in this debate.
They refer to the fact that it was only for a certain period. But we Social Democrats have shown that it is possible to include those funds in the budget. We extended this support because we want to have a good welfare, a better welfare for everyone in the entire country.
Statsrådet Erik Slottner (KD)
Madam Speaker! First and foremost, we have to nag about this again regarding "the SD-led government" because it is not an SD-led government.
This is a government consisting of the Moderates, the Christian Democrats and the Liberals who cooperate in parliament with the Sweden Democrats because that was the will of the people. The four parties received a majority. We were clear before the election in saying that if we get a majority, we shall try to have some form of government together. We also succeeded in that through the Tidö Agreement, and now we have a majority in the chamber. But it is not a government that is in any way governed by SD.
When one says that, it gives the impression that the Sweden Democrats are part of the government, and then one spreads false information. I think, especially in these times of disinformation, that is very serious, so this is a call to stop calling this an SD-led government. I think the opposition, especially the Social Democrats, is misleading people.
One can always discuss the direct question of why the government does not provide enough money to the municipal sector. One can always discuss what constitutes enough money. I can promise that if the Social Democrats' budget were to pass with a few per mille, well, in terms of increased grants to the municipal sector, one or another would probably think it was not enough. So that is how it is.
What we can observe is that this government has prioritized the municipal sector in the budgets we have presented. In the first budget we presented, one-third of the reform space went to the municipal sector. In the second budget, 40 percent of the reform space went to the municipal sector. In the third budget, no increased general government grants were given, but a number of targeted government grants to the municipal sector were. And the inflation fight has resulted in that the costs for the municipal sector have decreased by 50 billion kronor in pension provisions. These 6 billion stand quite flat in comparison with the 50 billion that the inflation fight has strengthened the municipalities' economy with.
Furthermore, we know that the municipal sector has historically had good results. Many municipalities still have good results. The vast majority of municipalities in Sweden have result equalization reserves and are now also working on expanding result reserves. These have been able to be used during the toughest years, but now things are starting to brighten in the municipal sector. The toughest years are behind us, and 2025 looks better than both 2023 and 2024 did. This has been managed, among other things, with the result equalization reserve.
Eva Lindh further says that the government is not providing any general state grants in 2025. Yes, they amount to approximately 160 billion in 2025. There is no increase in 2025, but there is a huge difference between not increasing and not giving anything at all. They are at around 160 billion here, and it is an increase in the two previous budgets of 16 billion kronor.
The special grant that has been given, which is to be considered a targeted state grant to certain smaller municipalities and certain specifically selected municipalities, was a three-year grant. It was planned to be removed in 2024. It was not a prioritization we chose to continue with, and I think it is a somewhat strange model to do in this way. We have a cost equalization system and a tax equalization system that are supposed to compensate for structural differences between the municipalities, where sparseness and smallness are two factors that provide these municipalities with extra money, so I think it was correct. I think that as far as possible we should try to stay within the frameworks we have, and we have a well-developed cost equalization system that I think we should continue to maintain.
Eva Lindh (S)
Madam Speaker! Before I proceed and speak about what my question actually concerned, I can say two things.
Number one is that I will continue to say "the SD-led government". I do not think it is a misconception, but it is exactly how this government has agreed with the Sweden Democrats that this country shall be governed.
Number two: Every time, reference is made to inflation. We have also worked to combat inflation. A minister in a Swedish government should know that more money to municipalities and regions in strengthened resources does not affect the fight against inflation. I just want that to be said.
We Social Democrats have shown that it is possible to do things differently. In our budget, we had 6 billion more in general government grants and 15 billion more in total than the government for municipalities and regions, for schools, for healthcare, and for all other important welfare activities. That makes a difference. It would have made a difference. I think it is quite upsetting that it is said to be a few per mille, because these per mille, as the minister calls them, would have made a difference in welfare.
Instead, this government chooses to spend billions of kronor on specifically targeted investments for those who already have, preferably already wealthy people in large cities, at the expense of welfare in sparsely populated areas and in the countryside.
It is about prioritizing, and we Social Democrats will always prioritize welfare throughout the country. We know that a strong welfare is good for the staff who work there. Now, one needs to run faster to be able to manage the work that one truly wants to do. One works in welfare to be able to make a difference. A strong welfare also reduces inequalities, increases security, strengthens equality, and creates hope. It is precisely that which we would have needed in a difficult time – to create a more equal and cohesive country with a welfare that works for everyone. In our budget, we are investing more money in welfare throughout the country.
The Minister refers to the equalization system. Therefore, it seems so incredibly strange that these resources are being removed just now. We and others with us had hoped for a more equalizing system and perhaps thought that it would come on January 1, 2026. Now I do not know, and I do not know if the Minister can give a statement.
What is happening now is that one is removing the resources that compensate for the fact that there are different conditions across the country, i.e., the resources for those municipalities that have the toughest challenges. Not to extend these resources for a year or perhaps two years until we have a more equalizing system seems truly strange.
What does this mean then? In Östergötland, it means that specifically municipalities such as Boxholm, Vadstena, Valdemarsvik, Ydre and Ödeshög receive between 2.5 and 3 million kronor less in their budget, money that could have made a big difference for the welfare in these municipalities.
Statsrådet Erik Slottner (KD)
Madam Speaker! Whether the increase in state grants to the municipal sector can fuel inflation or not may perhaps be a question for an economic seminar. We have a reform space that is adapted to the economic situation and economic realities, and that space shall be utilized in such a way that it does not drive up inflation. To believe that significantly increased state grants to the municipal sector would have no impact whatsoever on inflation, all else being equal, would probably be a rather new economic theory. In that regard, Eva Lindh would likely face opposition from quite a few economists.
However, that was not my main point. My main point was that now that we have brought down inflation, it means that the difference between 2024 and 2025 is 50 billion regarding pension contributions in the municipal sector. That means much more than the zero point something per mille that the Social Democrats want to strengthen the municipal sector's finances with through increased general government grants.
I have said it many times before: In relation to fighting inflation, the number of hours worked, growth, and how we can get the economy rolling, which is what matters most for the municipal sector, we discuss the exact amount of government grants to an all too high degree. That was my point in this.
I repeat that the government has prioritized welfare with one-third of the reform space in the first year and 40 percent of the reform space in the second year. In the third year, no increases are made to the general state grants because the economy looks to be improving, but the increases we had made to the general state grants remain in 2025, as they are permanent. In addition, we added a number of targeted state grants, not least to health and medical care.
Whatever the Social Democrats say, the government has nevertheless shown that we prioritize the welfare.
Now there will be some repetitions, but I think one should be careful not to create special systems alongside the regular systems. We have a tax equalization system that compensates many sparsely populated small municipalities that have structurally poorer conditions. But we cannot always equate smallness with poor finances, because those connections do not always exist. There is much else that affects a municipality's finances. There are several smaller municipalities that have very good finances, while there are larger municipalities that have very poor finances.
In the cost equalization system, sparsity is not compensated for, at least not sufficiently, and in the committee where Eva Lindh herself sat, it is now proposed that sparsity should have an even greater impact regarding the cost equalization. It is very possible that the government will end up there in the end.
Then the tax policy came in and it is mostly city dwellers who benefit. I do not know if Eva Lindh is thinking of the abolition of the wealth tax or the abolition of the inheritance and gift tax that the Social Democrats carried out once upon a time.
Eva Lindh (S)
Madam Speaker! It is quite astonishing to refer to tax cuts that someone else has made when half of one's own entire reform space, which was very large, is directed towards those who have it best. Specifically targeted billions are, after all, for those who actually earn the most.
One could therefore have imagined that the percentages of resources that the Minister speaks about could have gone to welfare. I am completely convinced that those who now stand in ever-longer care queues, who run faster in elderly care to keep up, or who work in schools where the largest cuts in 30 years are being made, do not agree with the Minister when he means that those percentage funds would not have made a difference. They certainly would have.
I also think it is astonishing that the Christian Democrats, who talked so much about the heartland before the election, actually do not safeguard this so-called heartland after the election, because they do not. They cut back on resources, especially to smaller municipalities and those municipalities that have it toughest. They cut back on service in the same municipalities, and they also cut back regarding investments in, for example, business development in these municipalities.
Sweden does not benefit from us drifting apart. Sweden benefits from us sticking together. We Social Democrats will continue to stand up for a strong welfare state throughout the country.
I still have not received an answer from the Minister on the question of why sufficient resources are not being provided to the welfare system or why resources are being removed from those municipalities in rural and remote areas that are particularly struggling. This affects the welfare.
Statsrådet Erik Slottner (KD)
Madam Speaker! I believe I have answered that question: I believe that the government provides sufficient resources in state grants. I stand behind the budget that we have laid.
It is said that we are cutting back, but we are not doing that. We have increased the general government grants by 16 billion since we took over - or since the voters gave us power, I should say, because we didn't commit a coup - and these funds remain. We have increased the targeted government grants. We have, therefore, increased the appropriations for welfare.
Now, the successful inflation-fighting policy has also led to the municipalities' costs for pension contributions decreasing by 50 billion. It is a significant economic improvement for Municipal Sweden that the government has laid the foundation for. And as was said, a third of the reform space in the first budget went to the municipal sector, and the year after, 40 percent went to the municipal sector. In the budget for 2025, it is true that half of our reform space went to lowering taxes, the large bulk to low- and middle-income earners through an increased job tax deduction and lower tax for pensioners. We shall see if the Social Democrats, in an eventual change of power at some point in the future, will take back these job tax deductions. The five previous ones were, in any case, not taken back. We must hope that even the sixth one gets to stay, if there are indeed six of them. It might be about even more.
Eva Lindh speaks about the heartland. I do not know if she remembers the high fuel prices before the 2022 election. Diesel was approaching 28 kronor per liter and was about to kill off parts of the heartland, both in terms of private individuals' finances and the business sector. Through lower reduction obligations, we have now lowered fuel prices so that one can actually drive their vehicles in the countryside without being financially ruined. It has been an incredibly important reform for the heartland.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.